Cons

Large for a Micro 4/3 lens

Terrible performance against bright light

High lateral chromatic aberration

High native distortion, though well corrected in profiles

The Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO is a lens that a lot of shooters have been waiting for. It completes the f/2.8 zoom trinity for Olympus, and does so in a mostly convincing manner. The lens is big and rather expensive at $1299, but you get a lens with an outstanding ultra-wide angle focal range that is sharp right from f/2.8. The lens handles well in the field and is extremely versatile, while providing mostly excellent optical characteristics.

The lens isn’t perfect, with high lateral chromatic aberration and terrible flare performance. The CA I can forgive a bit, as it’s so easy to correct, but the flare is harder to overcome. An ultra-wide lens is often useful for landscape work, but the lens flares badly whenever the sun is in the frame. As such, you’ll need to either incorporate the flare into the image, or simply not use the lens when the sun is going to be out. It’s that last part that makes the lens somewhat difficult to recommend, despite the strong performance in many other areas. I will say that the ‘purple blob’ problem that the Panasonic 7-14mm experiences on Olympus bodies is not replicated with the Olympus 7-14mm, which is nice. If you can get past the flare problems, the lens is an excellent performer and a very good ultra-wide zoom lens.

30 thoughts on “Review: Olympus M.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO”

As I’m shooting Olympus and Fuji X bodies – like you – I would like to know what you would favor personally, the Fuji 10-24 or the Olympus 7-14.
How are both of these in comparison to the Olympus 9-18mm in the overlapping range?

The 7-14 is the sharpest of the three. I think that none are perfect, but all are quite good. If you’re debating between this lens and the 9-18, it really comes down to whether you value resolution vs. compact size. The 9-18 has good resolution, but it’s not the same as the 7-14. Vs. the Fuji 10-24, things are a bit closer. The Fuji can flare in the right circumstances too, but it isn’t nearly as obvious, and it also controls CA better. That said, the 7-14 is still a bit sharper throughout the range.

I own both Olympus 7-14 and 9-18 lenses and for my needs, I wouldn’t want to be without either lens. For any long trek, especially for street shooting, I much prefer the 9-18 for its lightness, compactness, and screw-in filter capability. It’s my favorite WA lens. Rarely do I need 7mm wide angle, but I often use the longer focal lengths of the 9-18 lens, which is plenty sharp and software correction takes care of distortion and CA. The 7-14 is essential for architecture & interiors and yes it delivers superior IQ.

I no longer have the Panasonic 7-14, so I couldn’t do a direct comparison, but I shot with it extensively for a few years. My impression given that time gap is that the Olympus is a bit sharper, especially at the corners, though regular lens flare is better than the Panasonic. For interior shooting, however, the Olympus doesn’t have the ‘purple reflection’ problem that the Panasonic displayed when shot on Olympus bodies.

Regarding the purple blobs with the Panasonic 7-14 on Olympus bodies, for anyone who is concerned about it – it is caused by a weak UV filter on the Olympus sensor stack. It can easily be eliminated with a simple Haze 2A UV filter. Unfortunately, this does require adding the rear filter holder from the Panasonic 8mm fisheye and using a Wratten 2A filter gel. Not a hard modification, but irritating for those with Olympus bodies nevertheless.

Great review and I concur 100% with your assessment of this terrific lens. I got mine shortly after it was released. Have been enjoying looking at the world “wide-eyed.” Have some spectacular flower close-ups throughout the 7-14mm range.

Well, neither does the Nikon 14-24, the Canon 11-24, the Tamron 15-30, or the Sigma 12-24.

If you want a field of view wider than ~107 degrees or so, the front element is just too bulbous to allow filter threads. You can also get adapters for Lee / Cokin-type square filters that clamp over the hood.

None of the lenses you mention are as wide as this lens. Those lenses are all APS-C lenses, with the widest of them having a field of view equivalent to ~15mm on full frame, as opposed to 14mm here. It may not sound like much, but I’ve yet to see one 14mm equivalent lens with filter threads.

I own the 12-40 an 40-150 Pros and consider them excellent. But I’m not at all convinced with this 7-14. Seems like it has too many glaring flaws to be worth the money. Flare issues, and no way to use filters, for example. Seems like this design was not as well thought out as previous Pro series lenses.

There’s the one with the fire escape on this page, and if you enlarge the image below where I discuss the flare on page 2, you can see a tremendous number of ghosting artifacts. Not only the purple blob to the left of the image, but a big series of white flare ghosts mid/right frame, plus the purple bleed. Thing is, if the sun is included in the frame, that level of flare is there no matter where. The shot with the fire escape shows what it does with the sun at the corners/just out of frame. Once I saw this, I often chose to exclude compositions that had the sun in them.

I have successfully used the Pany 7-14mm f/4 for years (especially for architecture shots), but I have traded it for the new Olympus 7-14mm Pro f/2.8. It is common knowledge that very wide angle lenses are very prone to flare and CA at the edges of the frame, and this was the case for the Pany 7-14mm on my Olympus M5 and M1 bodies. I have read every test report I could find on the Olympus Pro 7-14mm, and it’s CA and overall sharpness ratings have been superior to those of the older, slower Pany 7-14mm lens. Further, large purple blobs very not infrequent in interior shots with the Pany when bright window light was present. Getting the new Olympus Pro 7-14mm is an upgrade for me over the Pany version even thought the latter gave me great service for years.

Olympus (or Panasonic) should make an UWA prime (actually, given the amount of people who seem to adapt, it only makes sense to address very well the wide end). Every wide angle zoom I know of will have problems with flares and sunbursts, not to mention expensive filters. Resolution in the corners is great, but it means nothing when there are colorful blotches all over the image. This Olympus is actually surprisingly bad (in this particular aspect) for its price.

I used it for 8 years (from 2006 until today), the Zuiko 7-14 F4, the Old lens suffers from what I can see, the same problems of ghosting and flare of the new lens, I could know if the quality is the same?

Are you able to comment on how this lens compares to the Four Thirds 7-14mm F/4.0 lens? Obviously it is smaller and one stop faster, but apart from those factors? I ask because I have the Four Thirds lens which I use on an E-M1 and so focusing is OK. I’m been wondering whether to sell the F/4.0 lens and buy this Pro lens.

I think the distortion of this lens is worth noting in more than a cursory way. While I admit I have not used the lens personally, I think it’s instructive to take Photozone’s conclusions into account. When a lens has this much raw distortion that must be corrected, you are simply losing something. The Panasonic 7-14mm does not have as much, to be fair to that lens. Please see link below:http://www.photozone.de/m43/961_olympus714f28pro?start=1

Archives

We use cookies to personalize content and ads and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with advertising and analytics partners who may combine it with other information that you’ve provided to them or that they’ve collected from your use of their services. You may consent to the use of cookies or opt out. AcceptRejectRead More